Van Den Heuvel, who has denied any wrongdoing, previously faced ten counts, but federal prosecutorsadded nine [sic] counts against himthis week. Three are charges of allegedly making false statements on loan/credit applications, while six are bank fraud counts.

A status conference is scheduled for Sept. 27 for both Van Den Heuvels.

From on or about June 10, 2013 through on or about July 2, 2013, in the state of and Eastern District of Wisconsin,

RONALD H. VAN DEN HEUVEL

devised and participated in a scheme to defraud federally insured financial institutions and to obtain money under the custody and control of those financial institutions by means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations.

The scheme was as follows:

a. In June 2013, Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel desired and needed to obtain funds for himself and his business entities.

b. In order to obtain funds, Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel persuaded his employee [AND SON-IN-LAW PATRICK R. HOFFMAN] to apply for loans from financial institutions in his own name although the loaned funds were to be used by Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel and his business entities.

On or about June 14, 2013, in the state and Eastern District of Wisconsin,

RONALD H. VAN DEN HEUVEL

in order to execute the scheme described in this count, caused [PAT R. HOFFMAN] to apply to Community First Credit Union, a credit union with accounts insured by the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund, for a loan of $50,000. In an attempt to obtain the loan, Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel caused [PAT HOFFMAN] to falsely represent that he was the borrower, that the was the Director of Sales for EARTH[/ RTS], and that his annual income from EARTH[/RTS] was more than $92,000 when, as Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel well knew, the loan proceeds would be used by Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel’s business entities and [PATRICK HOFFMAN] worked for Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel as an office assistanct earning $12 an hour. ….

COUNT FIFTEEN

…The false statements were that:

a. [PATRICK HOFFMAN] was to be the borrower on a loan of $50,000 when, as defendant well knew, [PATRICK HOFFMAN] was a straw borrower whose name was being put on the loan even though the loan proceeds were actually going to be used by the defendant and his business entities.

b. [PATRICK HOFFMAN] was the Director of Sales for EARTH[/RTS] earning a salary of over $92,000 per year when, as defendant well knew, [PATRICK HOFFMAN] was an office assistant earning approximately $12 an hour.

COUNT SIXTEEN

On or about June 17, 2013, at DePere, in the state and Eastern District of Wisconsin,

RONALD H. VAN DEN HEUVEL

in order to execute the scheme described in Count Fourteen, caused [PATRICK HOFFMAN] to apply to Nicolet National Bank, whose accounts are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, for a loan of $50,000. In an attempt to obtain the laon, Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel caused [PATRICK HOFFMAN] to offer the 2013 Cadillac as security for the loan.. ..

COUNT EIGHTEEN

On or about June 17, 2013, at Green Bay, in the state and Eastern District of Wisconsin,

RONALD H. VAN DEN HEUVEL

in order to execute the scheme described in Count Fourteen, caused [PATRICK HOFFMAN] to apply to Pioneer Credit Union…for two loans: one of $60,000 and one of $25,000. In an attempt to obtain these loans, Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel caused [PATRICK HOFFMAN] to offer the 2013 Cadillac Escalade and the 2010 Cadillac Escalade as security for the loans and caused [PATRICK HOFFMAN] to falsely represent that the was the borrower, that he was the Director of Tissue Converting for EARTH[/Reclamation Technology Systems LLC]., and that his annual income from EARTH[/RTS] was more than $92,000 when, as Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel well knew, the loan proceeds would be used by Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel and his business entities and [PATRICK HOFFMAN] worked for Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel as an office assistant earning approximately $12 an hour.

20. On April 27, 2015, your affiant conducted an interview [with] Guy LoCascio…who provided a verbal and written statement and also provided financial documents in an electronic format. Guy J. LoCascio is a certified public accountant who did accounting work for [RVDH] and [Green Box NA Green Bay]. LoCascio indicated that while attempting to sort out [RVDH]’s financial accounts, he noted that [RVDH] had not filed federal or state tax returns and large amounts of cash could not be accounted for. LoCascio informed [RVDH] if an accounting could not be made, [RVDH] would have to pay the company back as if the cash had been a loan.

21. LoCascio stated [RVDH] had many companies for which he was listed as an agent, president, principal, or chairman. [RVDH] would take money for his personal use from all of his companies.

22. While on site at the [GBNAGB] offices located at 2077 Lawrence Drive Suites A and B, LoCascio saw that office employees would be forced to enter whatever [RVDH] told them to enter into the computer for accounting purposes. LoCascio’s information about employees being ordered to falsify financial transaction information was later confirmed by another [GBNAGB] employee, Tami Phillips, who also indicated in her written statement that she was told to make false entries and with each false entry she made, she would indicate “per Ron” in an attempt to avoid culpability.

23. LoCascio said he knew the [RVDH]’s company, [GBNAGB], received over $1,000,000 from the State of Wisconsin [WEDC]. [RVDH] was compelled, as part of the fund’s disbursement process, to supply a reckoning of how the funds were spent. The document required a CPA’s signature. Neither LoCascio, nor CPA Steven Huntington, had signed the document to WEDC. LoCascio states Phil Reinhart asked LoCascio to sign a prepared financial statement, but LoCascio refused because he was concerned about the veracity of the statement. LoCascio stated much of the bookkeeping for some of the many companies under [RVDH]’s name was in the form of a checkbook register only, rather than accepted accounting principals.

24. LoCascio said [RVDH] would frequently move money and assets, such as machinery, without corresponding documentation.

25. As part of his work as a subcontractor through LoCascio & Company, LoCascio held a partial thumb drive backup of computer-filed financial records. This is common practice in LoCascio’s role as CPA. LoCascio volunteered to share the contents of his thumb drive with your affiant. Your affiant obtained a search warrant to view the contents of the thumb drive. The search showed:

a. Items gleaned from the search of LoCascio’s thumb drive include: Information about inflated valuation of patent and intellectual property that [RVDH] claimed to possess. The values were not documented using generally accepted accounting practices. On the thumb drive, there was evidence of money being transferred between accounts of several business to cover shortfalls. The specifics accounts from which money was transferred will be determined through this search warrant. A chart of banks and the last 4 digits of account numbers were located and can help to verify full account numbers, if located during the search. The documents contained on LoCascio’s thumb drive also confirm his statements relative to [RVDH]’s frequent transfer of assets between business and the conversion of investment dollars and loan protocols into personal use.

26. Your affiant met with and interviewed Steven H. Huntington on April 23, 2015. Huntington is a CPA and was formerly employed by [GBNAGB]. Per documents and statement provided by Steven Huntington, on January 1, 2013, Huntington signed a contract with [RVDH] and Green Box to be the CFO of Green Box and have control of all the money. Huntington did work for which he should have been paid $11,000 but was paid only $5,000. Huntington was promised stock options and a bonus if he remained at Green Box, which never materialized. Huntington provided substantive information about his activities and Green Box as follows:

a. Huntington had worked on production predictions and grant applications. In the course of researching the numbers, Huntington found an investor by the name of Ken Dardis who had invested $500,000 in Green Box. Huntington found that [RVDH] had used $200,600 of that money for personal expenditures, including dental work for his wife, Green Bay Packers tickets, and [RVDH]’s ex-wife’s car payment, among other things.

b. Huntington located another investment of $100,000 from a family estate firm called Dodi Management, LLC. Out of the $100,000 investment, [RVDH] used $73,547.34 for personal expenses, including $2,594.34 for [RVDH]’s personal insurance, $4,000 for [RVDH]’s Bank of America credit card, $45,000 transferred to [RVDH]’s personal account, and $153.65 to Kelly Van Den Heuvel’s dentist, Lincoln Dental, for example.

c. Huntington was aware of the $600,000 investment from Dr. [Marco] Araujo, and was aware that [RVDH] spent $373,515,60 of that investment on personal expenses. Those expenses are mentioned in paragraph 7.

d. Huntington said [RVDH] presented financial information in a civil suit that did not match the QuickBooks accounting data of Green Box.

e. Huntington stated [RVDH] would list assets as belonging to one company and would list the same asset as belonging to a different company the next day. Huntington said the transfer of assets was not recorded anywhere.

f. Huntington, doing work as a CPA for Green Box, did not assist [RVDH] in putting together UCC filings.

g. Both Huntington and LoCascio stated that [RVDH] transferred the titles of two company vehicles, 2010 Cadillac Escalade, black in color, with WI license plate 727VKL and 2013 Cadillac Escalade, white in color, with WI license plate 729VKL which were registered under E.A.R.T.H., to his son-in-law, Patrick Hoffman. [RVDH] did this because he was unable to obtain financing from any local bank. [RVDH] instructed Hoffman to use two Cadillac Escalades, which were now registered to Hoffman, as collateral. Both Huntington and LoCascio stated they warned [RVDH] about transferring both vehicles to Hoffman, as then Hoffman would have to show the acquisition of the vehicles as taxable income. Hoffman was shown as the registered owner of the two Cadillac Escalades for one year before the vehicles were registered again by E.A.R.T.H. [formerly NATURE’S CHOICE TISSUE LLC, now doing business as RECLAMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS LLC]. The two Escalades are still used as company vehicles, and your affiant has seen [RVDH] getting out of the black Escalade at 2077 Lawrence Drive, City of De Pere, Brown County, Wisconsin.

Washington (July 25, 2016) — The IRS has asked U.S. Tax Court to exclude a “misleading” expert report that a Wisconsin holding company with investments in various paper mill enterprises is seeking to use in a fight over $92 million in disallowed bad debt deductions, arguing the company had unfairly refused to address issues raised in the report when asked by the agency.

In a motion in limine last week, the IRS said that throughout the litigation, VHC Inc. has consistently dodged inquiries into the circumstances surrounding the allegedly illiquid debt only to turn around and submit an expert report on those issues in a “badly disguised attempt to muddy the waters” in the case.

The [IRS] wants to bar a report prepared by Chicago-based accountant Mark G. Kucik concluding that [Sharad Tak’s] ST Paper LLC and Tak Investments LLC are unable to pay the amounts set out in promissory notes for the acquisition of entities indebted to VHC.

The IRS said that while the report would suggest otherwise, VHC itself had admitted that ST Paper had made payments under the notes.

“To allow petitioners to now file a misleading and irrelevant expert report on ST Paper’s ability to make payments, when petitioners have represented to respondent at various times that payments were made and intentionally withheld any information corroborating such payments is highly prejudicial to respondent,” the IRS said. “Since petitioners’ conduct is nothing less than dilatory, petitioners should be barred from submitting Kucik’s expert report.”

What’s more, VHC cannot rely on the report because they weren’t aware of the financial condition of ST Paper when it claimed the bad debt deductions at issue.

“The test is based on what the taxpayer knew at the time, not what the taxpayer found out years after the debt is written off,” the IRS wrote.

The case is scheduled for trial Aug. 15 in Milwaukee. VHC could not be reached Monday for comment on the motion. The IRS does not comment on pending litigation.

In its March 2015 petition, VHC said that it owned debt and not equity in relative Ron Van Den Heuvel’s spinoff businesses and that the IRS wrongly increased VHC’s taxable income during the period while disallowing deductions for the debt, which a series of bad deal had rendered illiquid.

Though VHC declined Ron’s solicitations to invest in businesses under his control, VHC began issuing debt in the form of promissory notes to Ron’s acquired companies for equipment and overhead costs.

Shortly before 2000, VHC issued a line of credit to Ron’s cotton fiber plant for the installation of a key machine, thinking the transaction was secured by the fact that the United Arab Emerites Investment Ltd. had made an offer on the plant that would have far exceeded the amount of the company’s debt. However, UAEI withdrew from the deal at the last minute after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, saying the status of a Middle Eastern company in the U.S. had become too risky.

About the same time, Enron, one of the debtor’s key backers, filed for bankruptcy.

VHC gave the company even more money after the two collapses to help it get back on its feet, but a series of bad deals would prevent repayment for years, causing VHC to declare the bad debt deductions on each year’s tax returns, according to the petition.

In 2007, however, it appeared that the debt would be repaid with an offer on the mill from Goldman Sachs-backed ST Paper, to purchase Ron Van Den Heuvel’s assets. Believing that the deal would bear fruit, VHC waived its bad debt deduction for its 2006 returns. However, VHC recanted when it learned that under a new arrangement, ST Paper would execute the sale in the form of promissory notes rather than cash payments.

5. While the Debtor was in receivership in the year prior to commencement of this case,Eco-Hubfailed to pay rent to the Debtor, owing the Debtor with $1.386 million in back rent.See Docket Entry #14, p.4. Van Den Heuvel’s management left the Debtor without any cash at the commencement of this case.

7. The Debtor’s assets – its manufacturing facility in DePere, the two Kool Units, the $1.386 million in accounts receivable (Eco-Hub’s back rent), are fully encumbered. SeeDocket Entry #14, Schedule D. One of the Kool Units is in South Carolina and subject to a $200,000 possessory security interest.SeeDocket Entry #14, Schedule D, page 12. The Debtor does not have any collateral to offer lenders and investors.

20. The hallmark of a trustee is accountability and segregation of funds.In re Nugelt, 142 B.R. 661, 666 (Bankr. D. Del. 1992). The premise that insiders may simply take what they need or wantof the estate’s assets is contrary to the Bankruptcy Code and the fiduciary duty owed the estate and its creditors. Nugelt at 666.

21. In the instant matter, by failing to collect rent from Eco-Hub, management diverts funds from the Debtor to Eco-Hub, breaching its fiduciary duty to the estate. Eco-Hub leased the Debtor’s facility for $74,000 per month, while that lease expired, management should not allow Eco-Hub to use its facility rent free. The failure to collect rent from Eco-Hub amounts to a breach of fiduciary duty to the estate. Moreover, management’s failure to collect current rent from Eco-Hub amounts to a breach of fiduciary duty to maximize estate assets.In re Fall, 405B.R.863, 869 (Bankr N.D. Ohio 2009). …

24. In order to confirm a plan, the Debtor must be able to fund it. Income projections must not be speculative. In re Cherry, 84 B.R. 134, 139 (Bankr.N.D. Ill. 1988).

25. In May 2016, the Debtor reported that it had no cash, no cash flow, and a -$17,153 net operating loss. See Docket Entry #40. Similarly, in June 2016, the Debtor reported that it had no cash, no cash flow, $34,306 in accounts payable, $18,903 in accrued attorney’s fees and a net loss of -$36,056. See Docket Entry #51. The Debtor’s downward trend continued in July, 2016. In July 2016, the Debtor reported that it received $450 from its parent company EARTH [recently renamed Reclamation Technology Systems, LLC / RTS], which funded the opening of its bank accounts, accrued $41,212 in accounts payable and a net operating loss of -$7,234.The Debtor failed to account for Eco-Hub’s unpaid rent in all of its MORS. As time passes, the Debtor’s accounts payable and receivable increase. There is no evidence this trend will change.

26. Smith testified at the § 341 meeting that Eco-Hub still does not pay rent to the Debtor because its cash flow is insufficient to pay the rent. Smith has not provided any information indicating when that Eco-Hub will generate sufficient cash flow to pay rent. …

36. The Debtor does not have any unencumbered assets to provide collateral for new financing.SeeDocket Entry #14. When Smith obtained his General Business Security Agreement and filed his UCC-1 in the fall of 2015, while the Debtor was in receivership, Smith perfected a lien on all the Debtor’s assets, leaving the Debtor without collateral for a new lender.

37. To date, the Debtor has not reported any operating cash flow. Without rent revenue, the Debtor does not have cash to pay its ordinary business expenses including taxes, utilities, insurance, repairs and maintenance or its administrative expenses.See Docket Entries #40, #51, and #57, May, June and July, 2016 MORs.

38. For years, the Debtor survived by obtaining cash from new investors, including Smith. The Debtor received $800,000 from Araujo in April 2011; $1 million from the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp in October 2011; $3.2 million from Clifton Equities in October 2012; $9 million from Ability Insurance in December 2013; and $4.7 million from Smith’s company, GlenArbor, during 2014-2016.SeeDocket Entry #14.

39. Despite these [$18.7 Million in] cash infusions, the Debtor failed to pay more than $300,000 in property taxes, accrued payroll taxes, never filed a Federal tax return, and owes more than $68,000 for employee health insurance premiums, among other debts. SeeDocket Entry #14, Schedules E/F.

40. In order to proceed in chapter 11, “courts require the Debtor to do more than manifest unsubstantiated hopes.”In re Canal Place Ltd. Partnership, 921F.2d569, 577 (5th Cir. 1991); See also Tennessee Publishing Co. v. American Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 18, 22 (1936).

41. In this case, the Debtor offers little hope of rehabilitation. Although the Debtor now argues that its Kool Units establish firm footing for its financial future, no concrete information about refinancing or outside investment has been presented to the court.

42. The Debtor’s financial circumstances changed little, if any, since the filing of its petition. Accordingly, the Debtor does not have a reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation. …

57. Another hurdle presented is the Debtor’s failure to file tax returns since its inception in 2011. A confirmable plan must provide for payment of delinquent taxes within 60 months of the date of the filing of the petition. 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(9)(C). Although more than three months have elapsed since the filing of this bankruptcy, the Debtor has yet to retain an accountant to prepare its delinquent tax returns. The critical tax issue remains at a standstill.

Conclusion

58. This case should not proceed because it is a half-hearted effort by management to buy time, which is particularly demonstrated by the incomplete Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs. The Debtor’s management’s failure to collect its only source of revenue – rent – from a related, non-debtor entity, Eco-Hub, demonstrates management’s disinterest in the estate. Without complete Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs, the Debtor cannot file an adequate disclosure statement or confirm a plan. This case should be dismissed and the Debtor left to deal with its creditors outside of the bankruptcy forum.

NOW COMES the Debtor, Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC, by its attorneys, Steinhilber Swanson LLP, by Paul G. Swanson, and hereby objects to the United States Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss or Convert the case to Chapter 7, as joined in by Ability Insurance Company. As grounds for such Objection, the Debtor asserts as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. The Debtor is, as has been explained in open court and at the Section 341 hearing, a repository of certain assets which are intended to be utilized in a “roll up” of several entities into a new company (hereinafter “New Co”), which will engage in the recycling of materials which would otherwise be landfilled. Specifically, New Co will have the ability to recycle 85-90% of solid waste which would otherwise go into landfills. Such solid waste is comprised of, to a large extent, paper and paper products as well as plastics.

2. The Debtor as has been explained, was an operating entity until approximately the end of June 2015, when a receiver was appointed by certain creditors who had petitioned the Brown County Circuit Court for relief. At that time, the receiver did not have the ability to operate the business and employees were “spun off” or transferred to another related entity who resumed the business that had been the Debtor’s. It was important to continue the business in order to demonstrate the feasiblity and operational ability of the New Co component that the Debtor formed, which was basically, at that time, converting recycled tissue into consumer products such as tissues, toilet paper, and paper toweling.

3. The Debtor’s principal, Ron Van Den Heuvel, as well as other investors, continued to work on the “roll up” into New Co over the next year, but were hampered by the fact that in July 2015, a search warrant was executed and all of the books and records of all of the entities were seized by the Brown County Sheriff. Those records were not returned until well after this bankruptcy proceeding was commenced, and even at that, were neither complete nor organized.

4. The bankruptcy proceeding was filed in order to give the Debtor a chance to propose a Plan which would incorporate the assets and claims of the Debtor into the overall New Co operation. New Co consists of a much larger business which receives a waste stream, sorts the same, processes the waste into pulp and plastic, pelletizes the plastic and other organic waste, and uses the pulp to manufacture tissue, which is then converted into consumer products. The plastic and other organic stream is pelletized and incorporated into several products or processes.

6. As a result of the receivership and subsequent seizure by law enforcement of the records of the Debtor, the offering went nowhere.

7. It is no secret, nor has it been since the initial filing in this case, that the Debtor’s assets would be rolled into New Co and various creditors’ claims would be dealt with either in the form of payment of cash or, in the case of unsecured claims, payment over time. Additionally, some creditors are also equity holders in one or more of the entities related to the Debtor which, if the Plan is successful, will generate significant returns for such holders.

ARGUMENT

8. Generally speaking, the assertions made by the U.S. Trustee in its Motion to Convert or Dismiss are irrelevant or untrue. Among other things, the Debtor-in-Possession disputes the assertion that Ron Van Den Heuvel (“RVDH”) has anything to do with the ongoing operations of the Debtor or, for that matter, any of the related entities. Additionally, RVDH’s past conduct has nothing whatsover to do with this “roll up” Plan, although he does have an equity interest in the companies, which will be rolled into New Co along with the assets. It should be pointed out that RVDH has personal guaranties on many of the claims in this case and any interest he may have in New Co and the attendant profits made therefrom simply serve to fund any allowed deficiency claim against him by many of the creditors of this debtor.

9. Contrary to the U.S. Trustee’s assertion that the Debtor has no property, the Debtor has property which does not serve as collateral.New Co will be seeking approximately $174 Million in the capital markets in a combination of debt and equity, which is similar to what was projected prior to the receivership by Piper Jaffrey [sic]. Out of a portion of this, claims will be paid in this case pursuant to a Plan which will be filed in order to “roll up” the assets of the Debtor into the New Co. operation.

10. The various assets of the Debtor, including the Kool units, will be dealt with in the Plan of Reorganization and claims against them addressed therein. Indeed, the Kool units are not absolutely necessary to New Co, but the value of them, if incorporated into New Co, is substantially greater than if they are surrendered to the secured creditor. Creditors would benefit from the utilizations of all of the Debtor’s assets, if indeed they are rolled into New Co as the use value is asserted to be greater than scrap value.

11. The U.S. Trustee asserts that Schedule F is not complete. The Debtor-in-Possession is currently reviewing the documentation returned by the Brown County Sheriff (22 pallets of bankers boxes). The two unsecured creditors, Ferrellgas and Evoqua Water Technologies, LLC, which are alleged to have filed Proofs of Claim, are not creditors of the Debtor-in-Possession, but rather, of other entities related thereto and the Debtor will file Objections to those claims.

12. The Debtor is not misusing the assets. Assets are being preserved for the forthcoming roll up into New Co and the Debtor asserts that the value which New Co will pay is higher than the liquidation value of the various assets of the Debtor, thus promoting the highest and best return to the creditors.

13. The Debtor will pose a confirmable Plan which will be feasible. Absent the receivership and attendant difficulties which it caused, it is likely that New Co would be funded by this time. Substantially, the business model has not changed, the demand for this type of product and service has only gotten greater, and the technology has been further proven. The Debtor-in-Possession believes that it can successfully complete the Plan which it will propose.

14. The Debtor categorically denies that there is any continuing loss or diminishment of the estate assets and, indeed, as stated above, asserts that creditors and equity holders will receive the highest return if the assets can be rolled into New Co as was initially contemplated at the outset and inception of the obligations to the various creditors.

15. The Debtor asserts that it has complied with its statutory duties to complete Schedules and the Statement of Financial Affairs to the best of its ability. Lacking any kind of records until late August 2016, and given the state of the records which were returned, the Debtor has done the best it can. As a practical matter, the assets which the Debtor-in-Possession has disclosed are what it has and the value of the same is as set forth. The Debtor has been working on its Plan as opposed to “make work” which would add nothing to the overall understanding of the creditors of what will be proposed in the Plan.

CONCLUSION

The U.S. Trustee has been an impediment in this case. The creditors in this case are secured to a large extent and have sophisticated counsel. It is almost incomprehensibly [sic] to understand the rationale for the efforts put forth by the U.S. Trustee. It is clear that assets are not being wasted, but rather, preserved. The Debtor’s principals have been working tirelessly towards putting together an overall business plan for not only the assets of the Debtor-in-Possession, but many other valuable assets and processes which can be assembled and utilized very profitably to provide a service which will do much both for the environment and for taxpayers of the various municipalities which will utilize the technology, which is proven. There are many other constituencies in the roll up into New Co, all of which would be adversely affected by a dismissal of this case.

WHEREFORE, the Debtor respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion of the U.S. Trustee to Dismiss or Convert this case, and allow it proceed to Plan confirmation.

Dated: September 14, 2016

STEINHILBER SWANSON LLPAttorneys for the DebtorBy: Paul G. Swanson

WHERE IN THE WORLD does Atty. Paul Swanson think that Stephen A. Smith’s GlenArbor Partners Inc. is going to find people that are foolish enough to blow $174 Million on Ron H. Van Den Heuvel’s expansive Green Box North America con game, fraud & swindle?!

The affidavits presented by the State demonstrate that Mr. Van Den Heuvel was soliciting investment and loans from others for his various Green Box entitiesunder the guise that these entities were operational. The affidavits demonstrate that Mr. Van Den Heuvel’s Green Box entities were not operational. The affidavits demonstrate multiple material misrepresentations Mr. Van Den Heuvel made to investors and lenders for the purposes of obtaining investments and loans for Green Box. The affidavits demonstrate that once Mr. Van Den Heuvel obtained investments and loans, he converted the proceeds for his own personal use. The affidavits were based upon information obtained from individuals who had been victimized by Mr. Van Den Heuvel or had been employed by Mr. Van Den Heuvel. The victims include Dr. Marco Araujo ($600,000), WEDC (approximately $1,300,000), Ken Dardis ($500,000), Dodi Management LLC ($100,000), and multiple foreign EB-5 investors.

Were EB-5 immigrant investment opportunities in Wisconsin related to the statement by WI State Senator Julie Lassa at the September 9, 2015 Joint Legislative Audit Committee meeting regarding WI Gov. Scott Walker’s Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation/WEDC loans & assistance to Ron Van Den Heuvel’s Green Box NA even if it was suspected that Ron’s business was bogus?:

[WEDC] had invited Green Box as late as [2015] to participate in a ‘trade trip’ to Tanzania, even though Green Box is being investigatedand it might be something like aPonzi schemeor acheck-kitingorganization.

Oneida Eye implores our domestic & international readers to heed the warnings of the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission:

SEC Investor Alert: Investment Scams Exploit Immigrant Investor Programs, The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services are jointly issuing this Investor Alert to warn individual investors about fraudulent investment scams that exploit the Immigrant Investor Program, also known as “EB-5.”

Apparently, the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation / WEDC did not find “the efforts put forth by the U.S. Trustee” to file a Motion to Dismiss or Convert to Chapter 7 to be “almost incomprehensibly.”

Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, hereby joins the Motion to Convert to Chapter 7, or in the Alternative Dismiss, filed by the Office of the United States Trustee as Docket Event No. 59 for the reasons stated therein and to be demonstrated on the record. Dated this 15th day of September, 2016.

Cliffton Equities, Inc. also Joined In with the U.S. Trustee, and raised further issues regarding the unauthorized removal of assets/machinery from Wisconsin which resulted in an Order of Contempt & Writ of Bodily Attachment by the Brown County Sheriff’s Dept. against Ron Van Den Heuvel:

3 Attorney Michael S. Polsky was appointed as receiver of the Debtor. The Receivership Order also enjoined and restrained the Debtor “from transferring, encumbering or otherwise disposing” any of Green Box’s assets.

6. On August 16, 2016, I emailed Green Box, inquiring whether Green Box’s insurance was being renewed and whether that insurance policy will be in effect for Kool Unit, No. 2. A true and correct copy of the August 16 Email is attached as Exhibit B.

7. I sent follow-up emails on August 19, 2016 and August 24, 2016, but received no response.

8. On August 31, 2016, Green Box’s counsel emailed Cliffton, attaching three documents. The email provided the following statement:

Attached is the account record from East/West Bank (DIP Accounts) showing the tax escrow for the three months per the Order. Also attached is the Declaration page which is proof of insurance. The insurance has been in force and I’m not sure what you were informed about it.

This statement did not directly address Cliffton’s counsel’s earlier inquiries. A true and correct copy of this email is attached as Exhibit C. A true and correct copy of the first attached document is attached as Exhibit D. A true and correct copy of the second attached document, “Evidence of Commercial Property Insurance”, is attached as Exhibit E. A true and correct copy of the third attached document, “Certificate of Liability Insurance”, is attached as Exhibit F.

9. On September 2, 2016, I emailed Green Box’s counsel, explaining that his previous email and attached documents did not address whether Cliffton’s collateral is covered, especially with regards to that equipment moved out of state. I requested additional information on this issue. After receiving no response, I requested this information a second time, on September 8, 2016. A true and correct copy of this email chain is attached as Exhibit G.